Vegetarians, Flexitarians and the problems I have with "definitions"

Every day I tend to log into one of my various computers, either at work or at home and spend some time going through my e mail, checking out twitter or my blog to see who's visited me or to scan the headlines of a few sites that I regularly visit. Today's post was inspired by an article that I'd seen posted on Challenge Oppression web site. The article was titled "Vegetarians Who Eat Meat" which was itself inspired by an article in Newsweek called "No More Sacred Cows."

The Newsweek article starts off as follows:

"The latest cookbook by Mollie Katzen, author of vegetarian bibles The Moosewood Cookbook and The Enchanted Broccoli Forest, includes recipes for spinach lasagna and vegetable tofu stir fry with orange ginger glaze. It also includes a recipe for beef stew. No, not "beef" stew, in which some soy-based protein substitute is dressed and and spiced to look (and sort of taste) like meat. Beef stew. With real beef. From a cow.
Considered one of the chefs most responsible for the mainstreaming of vegetarianism in the 1970s and '80s, and a vegetarian herself for 30 years, Katzen began eating meat again a few years ago. "Somehow it got ascribed to me that I don't want people to eat meat," Katzen said. "I've just wanted to supply possibilities that were low on the food chain.""

My roommate has The Moosewood Cookbook and it was one of her first introductions to vegetarian cooking. I've never personally cooked from it, but for most vegetarians I've known, it ranks up there with Julia Childs or their mothers recipe's. For the longest time, not really that many people were writing about vegetarianism or vegetarian cooking so you got what you came for.

The Newsweek article goes on to say:

"For as long as people have been foreswearing meat, they've also been sneaking the occasional corn dog. The difference is, vegetarians used to feel guilty about their sins of the flesh-consumption. Now, thanks to the cachet attached to high-end meat, they are having their burgers without sacrificing the moral high ground."

This is where my ire gets a little ahead of my logic. The implication that vegetarians are "sneaking" what is assumed a guilty pleasure in MY mind is absurd. Let me explain. See to me, not only is vegetarianism a choice, to me its an ETHICAL choice. It's not just because I'm a foodie (which I'm not) but because I actually and truly care about the plight of what goes on my plate. To imply that me occasionally sneaking a corn dog like some naughty child, leads me down a very dark moral road. I would like to think that most vegetarians wound up being so, not out of only a call for good health but also because there is a moral implication that resides in the statement "You are what you eat" and in this country, that would be violence, torture, maiming, abuse, neglect and death. To me, there's a line here, that me personally, I just can't erase. I realize that I'm probably not the "poster child" for vegetarianism. I still own a leather jacket (I bought it when I was young and stupid) but don't wear it. I try to not buy from companies that do testing on animals, I essentially don't buy food from most companies who have commercials on TV and I do my best to contribute time to shelters and volunteering. So I like to consider myself somewhat redeemed. But hold on ... here's where my ire hits full blown anger.

"Buying only grass-fed, sustainably raised (and incredibly expensive) meat allows former vegetarians to maintain the same sanctimony they expressed with their old "I don't eat anything with a face" T shirts."

This is the SAME logic that offended me with Gourmet magazines idea of a "humane slaughter." I'm sorry but that kind of duality just doesn't exist in my mind and can't or my head would explode. There is NO such thing as HUMANE slaughter. Murder is murder now matter HOW you colour it.

to be continued .....